PEZZINO -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 256
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 256 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:21/2001 | 17 JULY 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J McKECHNIE J | 24/08/01 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction dismissedAppeal against sentence allowed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BRETT COLIN PEZZINO THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Criminal responsibility Blow to head Whether resulting actions independent of the exercise of will No new principles Turns on own facts Sentence Whether excessive Relevance of head injury |
Legislation: | Criminal Code (WA), s 23 |
Case References: | Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 Cameron v The Queen (1990) 2 WAR 1 Coates v The Queen (1957) 96 CLR 353 Cooper v McKenna; ex parte Cooper [1960] Qd R 406 Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459 Haggie v Meredith (1993) 9 WAR 206 Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R H McL v The Queen (2000) 174 ALR 1 R v Quick; R v Paddison [1973] 1 QB 910 R v Stripp (1978) 69 Cr App R 318 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PEZZINO -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 256 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- ANDERSON J
McKECHNIE J
- CCA 22 of 2001
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Criminal responsibility - Blow to head - Whether resulting actions independent of the exercise of will - No new principles - Turns on own facts - Sentence - Whether excessive - Relevance of head injury
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA), s23
Result:
Appeal against conviction dismissed
(Page 2)
Appeal against sentence allowed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr R D Young
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : Gunning Barristers & Solicitors
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Case(s) also cited:
Cameron v The Queen (1990) 2 WAR 1
Coates v The Queen (1957) 96 CLR 353
Cooper v McKenna; ex parte Cooper [1960] Qd R 406
Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
Haggie v Meredith (1993) 9 WAR 206
Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R H McL v The Queen (2000) 174 ALR 1
R v Quick; R v Paddison [1973] 1 QB 910
R v Stripp (1978) 69 Cr App R 318
(Page 3)
1 MALCOLM CJ:…
Continue reading Pezzino v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Pezzino v The Queen [2001] WASCA 256
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 256
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of charges including armed robbery, kidnapping, and assault. The dispute centred around whether the appellant's actions were independent of the exercise of his will due to a blow to the head he received during the commission of the crimes, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues revolved around the appellant's criminal responsibility and the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that he should not be held criminally responsible for his actions because they were a result of the head injury he suffered, and not due to the exercise of his will. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence was excessive, given the mitigating factor of the head injury. The court had to determine whether the head injury absolved the appellant of criminal responsibility and whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court held that the issue of criminal responsibility did not require the creation of new principles, but rather turned on the facts of the case. The court found that the head injury did not absolve the appellant of criminal responsibility, as his actions were not completely independent of his will. The court emphasised that the head injury was a mitigating factor, but it did not negate the appellant's criminal responsibility. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately taken into account the mitigating factor of the head injury, and the sentence was therefore excessive. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and allow the appeal against the sentence. The appellant's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was deemed excessive, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.
The central legal issues revolved around the appellant's criminal responsibility and the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that he should not be held criminally responsible for his actions because they were a result of the head injury he suffered, and not due to the exercise of his will. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence was excessive, given the mitigating factor of the head injury. The court had to determine whether the head injury absolved the appellant of criminal responsibility and whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court held that the issue of criminal responsibility did not require the creation of new principles, but rather turned on the facts of the case. The court found that the head injury did not absolve the appellant of criminal responsibility, as his actions were not completely independent of his will. The court emphasised that the head injury was a mitigating factor, but it did not negate the appellant's criminal responsibility. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the trial judge had not adequately taken into account the mitigating factor of the head injury, and the sentence was therefore excessive. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and allow the appeal against the sentence. The appellant's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was deemed excessive, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction dismissedAppeal against sentence allowed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.